I doff my hat to Baroness Williams: she keeps a mean poker face.

This article for The Guardian may or may not be trying to fill an inside royal flush; it may or may not be a busted flush.

Time - and Lib Dem peers, who have (thus far) proven very loyal to the Coalition - will tell.

......................................................................

Click here for details of 'PM Cameron - Mr Lansley's "as one" or assassin?', the new issue of subscription-based Health Policy Intelligence.

......................................................................

Baroness Williams calls for "a compromise on the most contentious issues. These relate to competition, co-operation among providers (the two can conflict) and the need to ensure that in decisions where providers and commissioners may have conflicting interests, the interests of patients must have priority over profit.

"What that would mean for the bill would be dropping the chapter on competition, and retaining Monitor as the regulator of prices and of the foundation trusts. It would also mean pressing ahead with decentralisation, and the involvement of the public and the local authorities through the new health and wellbeing boards".

Mmm.

In fact, mmmmmmmm.

This is fairly high-risk, to state the very obvious.

Shirley, you can't be serious?
The first decision-making body is the Lib Dem peers. Will they follow Baroness Williams?

It isn't a given, but it is likely that at least some will.

Given Mr Lansley's incoherent pro-competition HSJ / Reform piece this morning, then if Lib Dem peers buy this for a dollar (which is not a small 'if'), then it is reasonable to assume that this is Simon ("move on") Hughes by another means.

In that scenario of Lib Dem support for Baroness Williams, it could not send a clearer message to Our Saviour And Liberator Mr Lansley that his chips have been officially pissed upon ... by Liberal Democrats, no less.

Unelected Liberal Democrats, which he will particularly appreciate.

Baroness Williams concludes her article with the words, "Building on the all-party constitutional agreement reached in the Lords would do more: it would give the NHS the stability and confidence it so desperately needs".

Up to a point, that's true.

However. The real question is this: does the PM really want Mr Lansley "taken out and shot", as per Tuesday's The Times briefing ... or is he "as one" with Mr Lansley, as per his Sunday Times article?

A week is, of course, a long time in politics.